Decentralized technology can help protect democracy around the globe

Recent political developments in the United States display the crucial challenges that centralized technology platforms pose to democracy — in stark distinction to the highly effective position social media performed in pro-democracy actions in the Middle East and Hong Kong. U.S. election misinformation and disinformation, in addition to white nationalism, unfold all through online teams, and outstanding political and social leaders discovered means to amplify falsehoods by way of technology platforms. 

Within each the public eye and darker corners of the web, organizers, together with members of the Proud Boys, planned the storming of the U.S. Capitol to cease what they believed to be a rigged election. The U.S. occasions, nevertheless, aren’t remoted. They match right into a broader sample of centralized social media platforms getting used to advertise violence, disinformation and riot as evidenced in locations resembling Myanmar and the Philippines.

A byproduct of those occasions, amongst others, has been heightened worry that extra non-public decentralized and peer-to-peer, or P2P, technology will provide a brand new and extra highly effective software for home terrorists. While these considerations aren’t unfounded, privacy-focused decentralized and P2P purposes can, in truth, protect democratic governance and help us transfer away from centralized platforms. The key motive is that in contrast to centralized platforms, they don’t seem to be in the enterprise of making echo chambers — concentrating on customers with particular content material that fits their pursuits and doubtlessly amplifying dangerous content material to be able to improve consumer engagement. This offers us a greater method to handle social technology’s impression on public security, much like how we’ve beforehand ruled extra conventional types of interplay resembling speech, phone calls and mail.

Centralized platforms

On one hand, the greatest digital media tech corporations espouse free speech, however on the different hand, their enterprise mannequin is based upon amassing knowledge, creating behavioral profiles and concentrating on particular content material to particular audiences. In the finest mild, this technical underpinning serves to floor content material and companies that a person consumer would need to see or devour. But extra importantly, and of concern to democracy, centralized platforms intentionally search to get customers hooked on the platform by way of algorithms designed to mass-direct content material focused towards particular audiences. This mannequin allowed Russian intelligence operations to undermine the 2016 U.S. elections by way of centralized social media platforms, and Islamic terrorist organizations to radicalize and indoctrinate individuals by way of YouTube.

Related: Social media giants must decentralize the internet… Now!

After going through public backlash following the Capitol riot, the greatest U.S. social media corporations stepped in to completely or indefinitely ban former President Donald Trump’s and others’ accounts. Some have hailed this as a much-needed, minimal present of accountability, particularly given how lenient tech corporations have been in regard to white supremacy.

I agree that our greatest tech corporations did what was wanted to protect democracy, albeit in a much-delayed, inconsistent method. The similar requires regulating social media content material, nevertheless, are additionally stoking fears of personal and decentralized tech as a brand new harmful bogeyman, regardless of the undeniable fact that their enterprise fashions and technical underpinnings are considerably completely different.

The case for privacy-focused decentralized and peer-to-peer technology

The key concern of personal decentralized and P2P technology is that influential and controversial people who find themselves being regulated on centralized technology platforms can have entry to well-designed alternate options with little to no oversight. And this worry shouldn’t be completely unwarranted. Telegram, for instance, has been found to be a haven for criminal activity and a supply of misinformation and hate speech, leading to riots and lynchings in international locations resembling India. Privacy-focused technology at all times faces the trade-off between defending consumer privateness and guaranteeing broader public security and safety. The key query, nevertheless, is whether or not democracy and public security are literally at better danger if these dangerous influencers flip to extra novel and personal purposes.

Privacy-focused decentralized technology options provide a greater various to centralized platforms as a result of their incentives are completely different. First, designers of privacy-focused purposes will discover it harder to curate content material, given the undeniable fact that they’re amassing little to no knowledge. Second, a P2P design makes it harder for customers to extensively flow into content material. This is to not say that decentralized programs completely stop customers from rapidly sending information to many individuals (e.g., LimeWire), however fairly that the outreach is extra restricted and targeted. Furthermore, outreach can be lowered by way of technical modifications, resembling limiting group sizes or the capacity to ahead content material.

Dipayan Ghosh, co-director of the Digital Platforms & Democracy Project at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, wrote that regulatory change is sorely wanted to “institute the right incentives for companies to act in the public interest without forcing the government to get directly involved in the decision-making process over which kinds of content should be deemed socially unacceptable and as such taken down by the companies.”

While privacy-focused decentralized technology has been traditionally framed as the means to keep away from oversight by Big Brother, it can additionally match a broader motion to bolster new rules, resembling modifications to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Specifically, non-public decentralized and P2P technology offers us the capacity to show away from technology platforms designed to surveil, categorize, curate and amplify. The surge in Signal downloads in response to WhatsApp coverage modifications, for instance, demonstrates the rising demand for extra non-public alternate options. Regulation is required to restrict the roles of centralized tech platforms, nevertheless it can’t work alone. We want technology to bolster this effort so as and help us notice new technical designs that don’t endanger democracy.

Centralized platforms are right here to remain. Decentralized and P2P platforms are unlikely to fully change centralized platforms. To fight extremism, content material moderation and regulation might be wanted to make sure that centralized platforms dwell as much as the beliefs of the web. An efficient method to stop misinformation or disinformation from spreading out amongst the public commons is the capacity for moderators to rapidly disprove and/or block this content material in the occasion it incites violence.

A graver concern around decentralized and P2P platforms is that misinformation and disinformation can proceed to unfold with out the capacity for a central physique to step in. This is an simple problem. The danger to democracy, nevertheless, is dampened by the reality that there’s much less scope for mass-sharing by way of P2P and decentralized programs. Research shows that disinformation and misinformation thrive off scale. Removing the focused outreach and amplification of content material can stop dangerous content material from proliferating.


American democracy was not undermined and lynchings in India didn’t occur just because individuals communicated misinformation and disinformation by way of web technology. This sort of information has been circulating effectively earlier than the creation of the web, stemming from historic cultural divisions, racism and authorities failures — see documentation of racial terror in America between the Reconstruction and World War II for example.

When it involves the position of technology, we should outline the actual hazard to democracy: centralized technology platforms that allow individuals to speak dangerous and violent content material to a large viewers, and which are primarily based on a enterprise mannequin that directs billions of {dollars} to enlarge content material by way of focused curation.

Private decentralized or P2P technology poses simple risks, simply as the phone, letters and word-of-mouth. But the helpful variations between this technology and centralized platforms can be finest summarized by the following instance: It is prohibited for somebody to yell “fire” in a theater if there isn’t one, however it’s not unlawful for that particular person to falsely inform their neighbor that there’s a hearth. Private decentralized and P2P purposes might be used for criminal activity. But stopping this criminal activity can’t contain infringing on privateness or stopping communication. Instead, we might want to tackle the underlying causes of those actions.

The Proud Boys storming the U.S. Capitol stems from a historical past of white supremacy and racial injustice. Violence in opposition to Rohingya minorities in Myanmar dates again to the Fifties and a legacy of colonialism. Looking at extra privacy-focused technology as the new hazard misses the level. Instead of making a tech bogeyman, we have to tackle the root causes of misinformation, disinformation and hate speech. And in the meantime, we should regulate our present platforms and promote alternate options that don’t in and of themselves undermine democratic norms.

The views, ideas and opinions expressed listed here are the writer’s alone and don’t essentially replicate or symbolize the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Nikhil Raghuveera is a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s GeoTech Center and associate at Pari, a nonprofit peer-to-peer video-calling startup. His analysis focuses on decentralized technology and the intersection of technology, social inequality and programs of oppression. Nikhil has beforehand labored in nonprofit administration, monetary inclusion, cryptocurrency and financial consulting. He graduated with an MBA/MPA from The Wharton School and the Harvard Kennedy School, the place his research targeted on racial justice, social actions and technology coverage.